Last week, I introduced the concept that commonly held beliefs about “carrot and stick” motivation techniques may not be very effective. I shared the results of an experiment conducted at Princeton University that illustrated how a person’s creativity is restricted when “if-then” incentives are introduced into a problem-solving scenario.
While interesting, one experiment is not sufficient to shape our concept of motivation—especially if this means giving up some closely held beliefs that we feel are effective. In his book Drive, Daniel Pink lays out a more complete case based on research from many different sources to make his point: There is a significant downside to using carrot and stick motivation techniques. I’ll summarize the research below.
The Seven Deadly Flaws of Carrot and Stick Motivation Beliefs
1. It can extinguish intrinsic motivation.
After examining three decades of studies conducted on this topic, behavioral scientist, Edward Deci, stated, “Careful consideration of reward effects reported in 128 experiments lead to the conclusion that tangible rewards have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation.” In essence, when you focus on short-term results, you do so at the expense of long-term motivation.
2. It can backfire and diminish performance.
In recent years, four economists—two from MIT, one from Carnegie Mellon, and one from the University of Chicago– were asked by the Federal Reserve to affirm the simple business principle that higher rewards lead to higher performance. Their conclusion… “We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”
3. It can crush creativity.
I shared the candle experiment in my last WorkPuzzle which suggested that time pressures hinder creativity. Many other experiments support this finding. Pink concludes, “For artists, scientists, inventors, schoolchildren, and the rest of us, intrinsic motivation—the drive to do something because it is interesting, challenging, and absorbing—is essential for high levels of creativity. But the ‘if-then’ motivators that are the staple of most businesses often stifle, rather than stir, creative thinking.”
4. It can crowd out good behavior.
In a famous Swedish study, researchers tracked the percentage of people who would donate blood voluntarily. With no incentive (other than good will), 53% of the test group chose to give blood. When an incentive was introduced, the percentage dropped to 30%. Why? “It tainted an altruistic act and crowded out intrinsic desire to do something good.”
5. It can encourage unethical behavior.
“Most of the scandals and misbehavior that have seemed endemic to modern life involve shortcuts. Executives game their quarterly earnings so they can snag a performance bonus. Secondary school counselors doctor student transcripts so their seniors can get into college. Athletes inject themselves with steroids to post better numbers and trigger lucrative performance bonuses.” Intrinsic motivation doesn’t fit with this model. When the reward is the activity itself—deepening learning, delighting customers, doing one’s best—there are no shortcuts.
6. It can become addictive.
Any parent who has ever thought of paying their kids to take out the garbage knows that the chances of getting them to take out the garbage for free in the future are very slim! Rewards offered for positive behavior often have to be subsequently increased to get the same level of performance. The reward becomes addictive. Casinos have done research on the ability of people to make good decisions when there are rewards at stake. Their findings? You guessed it. When rewards are offered (even small ones), the likelihood of people switching from risk-adverse behavior to risk-seeking behavior, increases significantly.
7. It fosters short-term thinking.
It only makes sense that offering incentives will often produce short-term results. Several studies show that paying people to exercise, stop smoking, or take their medicines produces terrific results at first—but the healthy behavior disappears once the incentives are removed. Pink puts it this way, “Greatness and nearsightedness are incompatible. Meaningful achievement depends on lifting one’s sights and pushing towards the horizon.”
Conclusion: Be very careful if you are going to use carrot and stick motivation techniques to get results from yourself or those you manage and coach. Of course, this begs the question…what does work? We’ll cover that in our next discussion.
Editor’s Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you’re an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the “comments” link below.
